- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Dwindling Aussie PRs reports: Do you believe ST reporter or
blogger?[/h]
November 2nd, 2012 |
Author: Editorial
ST StoryThere has been a little online "National
Conversation" going on between a Straits Times reporter and a blogger in the
last few days.
It all started when ST reporter Elgin Toh wrote an article about ‘Sharp drop
in S’poreans becoming Aussie PRs’. The article was first published on the
Straits Times on 27 Oct and then re-produced on Asiaone on 29 Oct [Link].
In the article, Mr Toh said that Singaporeans are increasingly returning back
from Australia to Singapore to work because of more opportunities in Singapore.
To support his case, he quoted statistics from the Australian immigration
department, showing that the numbers of new Australian PRs from Singapore are
falling from a high of 4,087 in 2005 to 1,823 last year.
Mr Toh reported:
The Australian immigration department told The Straits Times this week
that PR applications from Singaporeans are drying up. They have fallen every
year since peaking in 2005.
Experts, and Singaporeans who live or have lived in Australia, attribute
it to improved opportunities in Singapore, a rising Australian dollar and better
outreach by the Singapore Government.
The ST article quickly elicited a response from a blogger, Asingaporeanson,
who is a Singaporean currently residing in Australia. Asingaporeanson published
his response on his blog on 28 Oct and was re-produced on TR Emeritus (TRE) on
30 Oct (‘The Truth Behind Singaporeans Becoming Oz
PRs‘).
In his response, Asingaporeanson said:
The main gist of the article was to impress Singaporeans, especially the
young budding ones, that Singapore is the best place to be and tried to justify
it by attaching a graph entitled: FEWER HEADING DOWN UNDER. The entire piece was
focused on economic reasons such as better job opportunities, higher wages,
raising Aussie dollar and if all these puzzling enough, the last one took the
cake: better outreach by the Singapore government. In short, Shitty Times is
saying, “Less Singaporeans wants to get out and less Singaporeans wants to stay
out.”
Asingaporeanson argued that from 2006 onwards, Australia started tightening
their immigration policies. By 2010, international students were no longer
automatically be eligible to apply for a Australia PR visa after they complete
their studies. By 2012, skilled visa applicants can only submit an Expression of
Interest (EOI) and be eligible to apply only if they are invited.
Asingaporeanson said:
The truth from the chart is, less Australia PR Visas were granted to
Singaporeans not because Singaporeans deem Australia as an inferior location for
work and play but that it has been getting increasingly tougher to get into
Australia. It proved nothing but the effectiveness of Australia’s tightening of
migrant entry.
While Shitty Times is relentlessly spouting half truths and subtle lies,
our Malaysian friends @thestar.com.my chose to tell a fairer version of the
story in their website: [Link]
ST reporter Elgin Toh then rebutted Asingaporeanson on TRE as follows:
October 31, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Hi,
Elgin here. I wrote the piece in ST that you commented on above. Two
points I wanted to highlight, hopefully adding to the debate here.
1) The piece points out that quite clearly that new PRs from Singapore
fell even as new PRs from Malaysia, China and India rose. So if your explanation
is that Australian immigration policy has been tightened, you also have to
explain why the tighter policy is showing up in the Singapore numbers, but not
the Malaysia, China and India numbers.
2) The piece also points out that it is not just actual PRs awarded that
fell – applications for PRs from Singapore also fell. I can provide some extra
numbers here, that were sent to me by the Australian immigration department. In
the last 10 years, applications from Singapore fell by about 30%, even though in
that same period, applications from China and India tripled and applications
from Malaysia rose by about 50%.
On the same day, Asingaporeanson replied Mr Toh with another piece on his
blog [Link]. Asingaporeanson pointed out the high cost of applying for
an Australian PR – $3.5k to $8k. There is no refund for a rejected application.
Hence, a rational person will apply only if he thinks he has a reasonable chance
of success based on the criteria set by Australia.
The majority of Singaporeans who qualify for Australia PR visa have been
PMETs. This has never changed through the years. In fact, the percentage of
Singaporean PMETs to skilled professionals (we call them ‘blue collar workers’
in Singapore) is steadily increasing, because the number of blues are quickly
decreasing.
Over the years, as part of the tightening of immigration criteria,
Australia removed many PMETs vocations from the SOL list. For example, Aborist
used to be on the list but it is no longer today. The number of occupations
removed affect Singaporeans adversely, particularly in the engineering field,
among the others.
Singapore does not have a diversified education culture as compared to
Malaysia, China and India. It is rare to find an Actuary, Land economist,
Landscape Architect (that’s not a horticulturist), Cartographer and Spartial
scientist to name some occupations on the SOL. Whereas you can find plenty of
such professionals in Malaysia and especially China and
India.
And when comes to skilled professionals (i.e, blue collar workers), Singapore
will have even less. This is not the case for Malaysia, China and India. Hence,
it explains why the number falls for Singapore but not Malaysia, China and
India.
On Mr Toh’s second point, Asingaporeanson said:
The world has seen the growth of China and India for the last 10 years.
Gigantic growth is probably an understatement. Can I pose a simple question?
Would you accept the fact that through the last decade, Malaysia and
particularly China and India has produced an unprecedented of highly educated
and qualified people? I’m sure you can, as we can see the spill over effects
reach the shores of sunny Singapore.
Is it common sense to conclude the exponential increase of qualified
people from India and China translates to an increase in PR applications in
Australia, and probably everywhere else in the world?
In contrast, have the number of qualified Singaporeans to Australia’s
selection criteria increased ? No. In the first place, the fact that we have a
dwindling population (I’m referring to REAL Singaporeans here) already makes it
a reality that applications are not going to increase, let alone by 50% or 200%,
assuming conditions in both countries remain stable which was the case for the
past decade.
Mr Toh then replied on Asingaporeanson’s blog:
I think we’ve both expressed our views clearly. What I sought to say has
been said both in the original article and in my previous posting.
I’ll leave it to your readers to decide which explanation they find more
persuasive. But thanks for your feedback.
So, which explanation do you think is more persuasive and why? Straits Times’
or Asingaporeanson’s?
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
.
Editor’s note: Again, a gentle reminder here. Please
don’t engage in personal attacks if you don’t agree with the writers or readers.
Use persuasive arguments to win your opponent over
blogger?[/h]
ST StoryThere has been a little online "National
Conversation" going on between a Straits Times reporter and a blogger in the
last few days.
It all started when ST reporter Elgin Toh wrote an article about ‘Sharp drop
in S’poreans becoming Aussie PRs’. The article was first published on the
Straits Times on 27 Oct and then re-produced on Asiaone on 29 Oct [Link].
In the article, Mr Toh said that Singaporeans are increasingly returning back
from Australia to Singapore to work because of more opportunities in Singapore.
To support his case, he quoted statistics from the Australian immigration
department, showing that the numbers of new Australian PRs from Singapore are
falling from a high of 4,087 in 2005 to 1,823 last year.
Mr Toh reported:
The Australian immigration department told The Straits Times this week
that PR applications from Singaporeans are drying up. They have fallen every
year since peaking in 2005.
Experts, and Singaporeans who live or have lived in Australia, attribute
it to improved opportunities in Singapore, a rising Australian dollar and better
outreach by the Singapore Government.
who is a Singaporean currently residing in Australia. Asingaporeanson published
his response on his blog on 28 Oct and was re-produced on TR Emeritus (TRE) on
30 Oct (‘The Truth Behind Singaporeans Becoming Oz
PRs‘).
In his response, Asingaporeanson said:
The main gist of the article was to impress Singaporeans, especially the
young budding ones, that Singapore is the best place to be and tried to justify
it by attaching a graph entitled: FEWER HEADING DOWN UNDER. The entire piece was
focused on economic reasons such as better job opportunities, higher wages,
raising Aussie dollar and if all these puzzling enough, the last one took the
cake: better outreach by the Singapore government. In short, Shitty Times is
saying, “Less Singaporeans wants to get out and less Singaporeans wants to stay
out.”
their immigration policies. By 2010, international students were no longer
automatically be eligible to apply for a Australia PR visa after they complete
their studies. By 2012, skilled visa applicants can only submit an Expression of
Interest (EOI) and be eligible to apply only if they are invited.
Asingaporeanson said:
The truth from the chart is, less Australia PR Visas were granted to
Singaporeans not because Singaporeans deem Australia as an inferior location for
work and play but that it has been getting increasingly tougher to get into
Australia. It proved nothing but the effectiveness of Australia’s tightening of
migrant entry.
While Shitty Times is relentlessly spouting half truths and subtle lies,
our Malaysian friends @thestar.com.my chose to tell a fairer version of the
story in their website: [Link]
October 31, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Hi,
Elgin here. I wrote the piece in ST that you commented on above. Two
points I wanted to highlight, hopefully adding to the debate here.
1) The piece points out that quite clearly that new PRs from Singapore
fell even as new PRs from Malaysia, China and India rose. So if your explanation
is that Australian immigration policy has been tightened, you also have to
explain why the tighter policy is showing up in the Singapore numbers, but not
the Malaysia, China and India numbers.
2) The piece also points out that it is not just actual PRs awarded that
fell – applications for PRs from Singapore also fell. I can provide some extra
numbers here, that were sent to me by the Australian immigration department. In
the last 10 years, applications from Singapore fell by about 30%, even though in
that same period, applications from China and India tripled and applications
from Malaysia rose by about 50%.
blog [Link]. Asingaporeanson pointed out the high cost of applying for
an Australian PR – $3.5k to $8k. There is no refund for a rejected application.
Hence, a rational person will apply only if he thinks he has a reasonable chance
of success based on the criteria set by Australia.
The majority of Singaporeans who qualify for Australia PR visa have been
PMETs. This has never changed through the years. In fact, the percentage of
Singaporean PMETs to skilled professionals (we call them ‘blue collar workers’
in Singapore) is steadily increasing, because the number of blues are quickly
decreasing.
Over the years, as part of the tightening of immigration criteria,
Australia removed many PMETs vocations from the SOL list. For example, Aborist
used to be on the list but it is no longer today. The number of occupations
removed affect Singaporeans adversely, particularly in the engineering field,
among the others.
Singapore does not have a diversified education culture as compared to
Malaysia, China and India. It is rare to find an Actuary, Land economist,
Landscape Architect (that’s not a horticulturist), Cartographer and Spartial
scientist to name some occupations on the SOL. Whereas you can find plenty of
such professionals in Malaysia and especially China and
India.
will have even less. This is not the case for Malaysia, China and India. Hence,
it explains why the number falls for Singapore but not Malaysia, China and
India.
On Mr Toh’s second point, Asingaporeanson said:
The world has seen the growth of China and India for the last 10 years.
Gigantic growth is probably an understatement. Can I pose a simple question?
Would you accept the fact that through the last decade, Malaysia and
particularly China and India has produced an unprecedented of highly educated
and qualified people? I’m sure you can, as we can see the spill over effects
reach the shores of sunny Singapore.
Is it common sense to conclude the exponential increase of qualified
people from India and China translates to an increase in PR applications in
Australia, and probably everywhere else in the world?
In contrast, have the number of qualified Singaporeans to Australia’s
selection criteria increased ? No. In the first place, the fact that we have a
dwindling population (I’m referring to REAL Singaporeans here) already makes it
a reality that applications are not going to increase, let alone by 50% or 200%,
assuming conditions in both countries remain stable which was the case for the
past decade.
I think we’ve both expressed our views clearly. What I sought to say has
been said both in the original article and in my previous posting.
I’ll leave it to your readers to decide which explanation they find more
persuasive. But thanks for your feedback.
or Asingaporeanson’s?
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
.
Editor’s note: Again, a gentle reminder here. Please
don’t engage in personal attacks if you don’t agree with the writers or readers.
Use persuasive arguments to win your opponent over
